Progressive Christians in the News

from sojo.net

“The monologue of the religious right is finally over and a new dialogue has begun.”

- the Rev. Jim Wallis, author of 'God's Politics - Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It'

Progressive Christians in the News
Their Voices Grow Stronger by the Day


Jim Wallis, leader of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, has said that "some of the best conversations occur behind bars." He may have had some interesting conversations yesterday. He was arrested in Washington DC, along with 115 religious activists "who were protesting a House Republican budget plan's cuts in social programs when they refused to clear the entrance to a congressional office building Wednesday." [WaPo]

Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a Christian group active in politics, said Monday that protesters will pray for “a change of heart” by Republicans, citing Old Testament prophet Isaiah, “Woe to you legislators of infamous laws … who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.” - SFGate

See video of the event in the following formats [Sojourners]:
+ WindowsMedia
+ RealPlayer
+ QuickTime
+ iTunes download

See photos and reflections of vigil participants


Special feature at Sojo.net:

Why I Got Arrested this Advent Season
by Christa Mazzone

"More than anything, I'm risking arrest this Advent season because I have hope. And hope is what Advent is all about."

In the Chicago Tribune's political-minded report, Frank James says there was a`Christmas scandal' outcry when hundreds of Christian activists gathered in D.C. to protest bills granting tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing programs for low-income people:

Wallis and other progressive religious leaders who believe the poor have received short shrift hope that, by emphasizing the religious obligation to help the poor, they can reframe the debate....At the same time, that might help lift the fortunes of Democrats who voters say are more concerned with poverty than Republicans are, but who have suffered political defeats because their party is perceived as being less hospitable to people of faith. In the last two presidential elections, Democrats lost - by significant margins - voters who considered themselves deeply religious, and this has been an issue many in the party said must be addressed if Democrats are to return to power in Congress or the White House.

More on the Washington protest from Townhall.com:

"...when asked by Cybercast News Service whether he was urging the government to promote Judeo-Christian values, [Rev. Raymond]Rivera said he was not. "What we're saying is that ... whether you have a religious tradition like many people here do, or just come out of a human tradition, we don't think the country should balance its budget on the back of its most vulnerable citizens."

Related Blogpost with many links - Where in the World is . . . James Dobson?

John Longhurst at the Winnepeg Free Press talks about Faith and Personal Cost:

"....getting arrested for an act of civil disobedience in North America isn't remotely similar to what has happened to the four Christian Peacemakers Teams members in Iraq. But it reminds us all that following conscience and acting on conviction sometimes has a cost. For a few, it could mean putting life on the line."

CantonRep.com - Liberals of faith speak up

P.E.A.C.E. - Plant churches, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation – is a global church-to-church plan to mobilize Christians to fight against the five “Global Goliaths.”



Replies From Rightwing Christian Organizations, Who Were Noticeably Absent

The GOP News reports:

Carrie Gordon Earll, spokesperson for Focus on the Family, told Cybercast News Service that her organization did not take part in Wednesday's rally because it holds a different view of the relationship between the government and the poor. [my emphasis]

We can only assume that they think the budget is moral enough to suit their Christian fancy - and they must believe that the government has no responsibility or accountability for lifting the poorest in our society. In any moral sense, that statement is a no-winner. James Dobson and those in his his organization have shrunk back in the face of a value-challenge from Wallis and the other activists who protested in DC yesterday.

From the WaPo:

Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives 'know that the government is not really capable of love. You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy.'" Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says putting the biblical mandate to help the poor into the federal budget is a "shifting" of responsibility.

What a cop-out!

A state may not be capable of "love", but as a body, it surely is capable of legislating acts that will reasonably alleviate poverty. Our democracy provides for the debate of all citizens. Every individual citizen is capable of debating their common spiritual values in the public square and each citizen has the right (and civic duty) to call upon the state to govern based upon those values.

This is certainly not "shifting responsibility!" It is enacting responsibility! At the same time, it is acting out our deepest faith to call upon our government for social justice. The Christian Right are speaking as if Christian-citizens are helpless losers who should stay silent on matters of politics - and we knowfor a fact that they do not keep their narrow set of values at the government's arms-length!

A fine example of the Christian Right's hypocrisy is from Wonkette, who quotes a 'Focus on the Family' spokesman in a blogpost deliciously titled 'Left Behind: The Right Loves the Poor Until They're Born':

Focus on the Family: It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.

Wonkette: "In other words, poor people, if you're cold and hungry this Christmas, the right would love to help you. You'll just need to find a womb to crawl into first."

Will The Christian Right Splinter?

from New West Network:

[Pastor Ted] Haggard’s relatively open-minded stance [on gay civil unions] could signal a shift away from the radical homophobia of evangelical hate-mongers like Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, writes Dicker in a Toilet Paper blog item: “[Haggard] could have even greater influence over Evangelical Christian public opinion than Dobson has ever had, particularly if they start moving toward the middle where many who now despise them as fundamentalists might be willing to take a softer view if they'd adopt a message of compassion toward gays.”

The Rev. W. Robert DeFoor, a Kentucky Baptist leader, is calling for "more moderate, middle-of-the-road leadership" in the Southern Baptist Convention.

"I knew that but I used my candidacy as an opportunity to talk about fundamentalism and issues that were dividing us. Too many Baptists have been too silent and cozy when it comes to the rise of fundamentalism. I decided a while ago I was no longer going to be silent and would never be cozy."

________________

A Worthy Cause

Some of my own family members will soon travel to the heart of the Appalachia to serve their fellow brothers and sisters. The Redbird Mission could use your help.

_____________

All I Want For Christmas

What I want for Christmas *hint hint* - SERMONS FROM DUKE CHAPEL: Voices From "A Great Towering Church. Edited by William H. Willimon. Duke University Press. 384 pages.

"It's Gonna Take Awhile"

"It's Gonna Take Awhile"

In today's speech, as always, President Bush will not commit to any benchmark or timetable in Iraq.
Bad news.
Bush has either misled us or he has screwed up royally on Iraq - maybe both - and I don't trust him to carry on without a crystal clear and decisive plan. I know am not alone. (59% agree). I view him as having one eye on the calendar for the American political season - and the other on getting out of the mess he created with some kind of honor.
I want a leader with both eyes on one America. We want someone we know we can trust. Trust is a major problem for Bush.

A lack of a focus on an endgame - the absence of a clear identification of the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them could mean a dangerous and unexpected end to a disastrous Utopian attempt to change the Middle East.

Bush saying he will mimic Truman's "persistence" to see Japan become a democracy gives me the shivers when I think about Japan's "path to freedom."

The Nagasaki-Hiroshima story reminds us that government deceit (even by good men) is hardly a recent invention. None of the officials involved in this tale had evil intentions. What can be said of them is that some became so taken by the power the atomic bomb seemed to give them to do good (as they defined it), that they seem to have become carried away...
The manipulation of the public by elites, the seductive belief that overwhelming force confers unlimited power to determine good and evil, and the fragile nature of the limits we seem willing to accept on our own prerogatives are all ongoing issues--as, finally, is the terrible question of what it means for a democracy to delegate to one person such extraordinary discretionary power in an era when the next Hiroshima could be the globe.

- Excerpted from: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
by Gar Alperovitz

Louisiana - Public Sentiment After Katrina

Louisiana - Public Sentiment After Katrina

A new study reveals Louisianians' post-hurricane attitudes.

LSU's Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs shows that Louisiana residents are most concerned about the displacement of the state's residents, closely followed by their concern for rebuilding New Orleans. [LSU]

Document here (pdf)


Public confidence in religious organizations and nonprofits is highest, while confidence in federal government is lowest.

Louisiana residents rated the response of religious organizations as highly effective, giving them an 8.1 on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being highly ineffective and 10 being very effective. Nonprofit organizations received a 7.5. However, respondents evaluated the effectiveness of government response – at all lev-els – much more negatively. Respondents rated New Orleans city government and state government at 4.6, local governments – other than New Orleans – at 6.5, and the federal government at 5.1. The Greater New Orleans region – areas identified by the 504 area code – consistently rated all levels of government more negatively than other area of the state.

We are a divided society - two Americas - and it shows in this recent poll. Results show a clearly partisan response to the ratings given to the state vs. the federal government response to the hurricane. Unless you were comatose last Labor Day, you know how bad the federal response was to Katrina. Yet, look at the non-realistic response from Louisiana Republicans on the federal response vs. the local/state response. It's as if they were coached by Fox News:

Breaking the results out by political perspective, Republicans gave the federal government significantly higher ratings, 6.0, than state or local governments, 4.3 and 3.8 respectively; while Democrats gave low marks to government across the board, 4.7 to the federal government and 5.0 to both the state and local governments.

I am tired of having to report that many of our citizens are refusing to look at reality and are neglecting to commit to working together, as Americans from one America, to guide our Representatives toward meaningful solutions to so many of our nation's troubles. The longer we stubbornly commit to being divided, the worse things will get. The worst leadership lessons about commitment to national division have been taught by our President, who has given blubbery lip service to bipartisanship, but has never backed it up with meaningful action. Our Representatives are equally guilty. From the president, we have seen perpetual Republican campaign speeches, set perfectly for the media in front of adoring invitation-only throngs, with a convenient legislative companion to help him to cash in on what Bush unduly considers to be his "political capital" - the compliant "rubber-stamp" House of Representatives.

Louisiana citizens are looking to the federal government for the help that was promised to them by the president in his speech with the beauty-shot of New Orleans' Jackson Square in the background. It's been almost four months since the president promised "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen.” Yet, to date less than $20 million in emergency aid has reached the region, and there has been little indication of any plan for rebuilding New Orleans and the surrounding areas. According to a New York Times op-ed by Bruce Katz and Matt Fellowes of the Brookings Institution, 50 percent of the city still has no gas; only 10 percent of bus lines are running; and only one public school has re-opened. According to other sources, 40 percent of the city remains in the dark. [source: The Century Foundation]

A majority of Louisiana residents, 54 percent, said that the federal government should pick up the tab for the costs of rebuilding, while 20 percent said insurance companies should pay the costs and 13 percent said state government should pay.

Citizens are very concerned about the future of education and, to a lesser extent, health care. Some would actually agree to cutting health care to save education. What a sad choice - don't you agree?

Louisiana residents expressed a preference for raising taxes over cutting either education or health care, and a preference for borrowing money over raising taxes. Nearly 70 percent of respondents opted for raising taxes rather than cutting education and 65 percent opted for raising taxes over cutting health care. Even larger majorities preferred borrowing money to cutting education – 79 percent – or cutting health care – 74 percent.

______________


In more New Orleans news, FEMA so far has quietly backed off of any parish government that has raised questions about their trailer parks, according to Jeff M. David, publisher of the Livingston Parish News. I can't imagine that any Lousiana parish would appreciate these trailer parks, and cultural integration by issuing housing vouchers would be a far better idea.

From the New York Times:

This beleaguered city has struggled for months to maintain a "we're all in this together" civility, to keep the high-ground haves from turning their backs on the lowland have-nots. But the issue of where to place trailer parks in New Orleans seems to have stirred tensions and rubbed people like little else.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency wants to set up more than 22,000 trailers in the city in an effort to house returning residents while they rebuild their homes. Many will go in private yards, but plans also call for 22 trailer parks, said Rachel C. Rodi, a FEMA spokeswoman.

The agency has also been encountering resistance to parks in the rest of the state, even as it fields complaints that there is not enough housing for evacuees. Only a handful of parishes are allowing them. Some, like Orleans Parish, are restricting them, while many are barring them altogether.

And then there's NIMBY problem:

Much about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath has been unprecedented, yet this outcry is all too typical in cities throughout the nation. Everyone wants to help the less fortunate, but can't the city find another place for them?

It looks like most citizens believe the trailer park idea is bad - all around. The poorest will be stuck living in tin cans all together - isolated literally and figuratively from those lovely housing divisions across the street where the rich folk like to meet.

Sanctity of Life Ignored by California

Sanctity of Life Ignored by California
Jesus Wouldn't. We Shouldn't.

"Despite the claims from Williams and his supporters that he had been redeemed while in prison — writing anti-gang children's books and being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize — Schwarzenegger wrote, "Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?"

- The Terminator speaks


Tookie is killed


"Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

- GOD Arnold Schwarzenegger

At Captain's Quarters, there is what I believe to be a sincere display of Ed's feelings on the State of California taking the life of Tookie Williams this morning. While I appreciated it, I don't agree that the celebrities and political leaders who have pleaded for mercy on Tookie's behalf have been wrong, nor "circus-like" in doing so. If no one speaks against the death penalty in the circumstances where the toughest moral examples are used, then we will continue to see the death penalty used in the public's name.

If we call ourselves Christians and we applaud the execution of Tookie Williams this day, we should hang our heads and ask for forgiveness, for we have surely spoken against our own professed belief. This is an issue that encompasses the "Sanctity of Life" - just as sure as abortion is a part of that seamless garment of life. A life was taken by the State today. We can go home and tell our children that murder soothes the pain and brings feelings of justice of those whose loved ones are murdered - and they will be confused, after just hearing in Sunday school "Thou shalt not"....."Turn the other cheek..."

I work with kids from some of the most challenging neighborhoods - kids who have the tough choice of joining a gang or to stick with the courage to be themselves in the face of the peer pressure. I picture myself reading a book by Tookie to those kids, encouraging them to take the good road. Then I think of those kids when they learn of Tookie's eventual fate.

"As a Christian, I have no doubt in my heart, my mind, and my soul that what the State of California did this morning was morally wrong."

As a Christian, I have no doubt in my heart, my mind, and my soul that what the State of California did this morning was morally wrong. I think less of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for it, and I think less of our society for it.

As a Christian, I believe in mercy and forgiveness. Faith means sticking with your beliefs in the face of the most difficult moral struggles. This is surely one of them. With the victims of Tookie Williams never leaving my mind, I know that our Lord would not have recommended or approved of Tookie's death by the State, and that is why you'll never see me defending his execution. How soon we forget that we bear the symbol of Jesus Christ's own unjust execution on the ends of our golden necklaces. Our society would have deserved to have paid for Tookie's life in prison, because our society has not paid enough attention to the problems on the streets of Compton, Harlem, and most inner cities of the Unites States. By our actions today, I believe we've just created a thousand more mean-street Tookies. We should be ashamed as a society this morning, looking at the big picture.

"How soon we forget that we bear the symbol of Jesus Christ's own unjust execution on the ends of our golden necklaces."

Bishop T.D. Jakes reminded us recently of the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. When we think of our moral responsibilities to our society, it is a fitting story. He raised the vision of our wounded neighbors lying by the side of the road - and he said that the fact that some people choose to pass them by is a powerful and humbling reminder that you can't help others if you exalt yourself above them. In the parable, the Samaritan came off his beast to help the bleeding man. "Come down where the pain and poverty is," recommended the Bishop. Bishop Jakes pressed the fact that "Resources, not rhetoric, are what bring about meaningful changes in our lives." It's not what we say that is important. It's what we do that is important. Real leadership is defined by what we do. The Bishop suggests that we need to love our neighbors enough to "pay the bill..

"As a society, we have to "pay our bills" somewhere along the line. I'd rather pay the bill by making things better on the streets than to abide silently while the State performs executions in my name. 'Paying the bills' will require saving that drowning baby from Grover Norquist's proverbial bathtub."

As a society, we have to "pay our bills" somewhere along the line. I'd rather pay the bill by making things better on the streets than to abide silently while the State performs executions in my name.

"Paying the bills" will require saving that drowning baby from Grover Norquist's proverbial bathtub. America can do so much better than the Republican agenda of the past. We can all do so much better, Democrats and Republicans alike.

I send prayers to all who have been injured or forever left alone by Tookie's crimes, if he indeed was the one responsible. I send prayers to Tookie's family. I pray for Tookie's soul. He acted as a man who was regretful that gang violence was ever glorified. He asked for forgiveness and mercy - and we turned him away.

If we believe this merits God's love, I think we'd better think all of this out again.

____________

In Tookie's own words: [Democracy Now]:

We hear Stanley Tookie Williams in his own words, speaking in one his last interviews, recorded just hours before his death. He appeared on Pacifica Radio station WBAI's Wake Up Call. In the interview, Williams says he would like to be remembered for his redemptive transition: "Redemption. I can say it no better than that. That's how I would like the world to remember me. That's what I would like my legacy to be remembered as."

Doc Searls explains why he thinks this is a strike against Gov. Schwarzenegger.


Norman Solomon at the Gates of San Quentin.


Kevin Hayden moves around the usual rationales for being anti-death penalty and cuts straight to the political chase:

Willie Horton. Tookie Williams. 1300 missing children due to Katrina, with bloated black bodies floating past our eyes. Republicans really do like to Stay the Corpse, don’t they? Especially the non-Aryan kind.

Note: To defend the state's taking of a life, I saw someone invoking the Old Testament readings of Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, Numbers 35:33 - totally neglecting the New Testament and forgetting that these are words of God, and they work both ways. We could apply those readings to a soulless state taking a life in the name of its citizens - and the judgement against the people of the democratic state would be equal to the judgement against Williams.

Huh?

Huh?

The president, in his speech today in Philadelphia, bragged up "the American image" overseas, touting the federal government's response to the deadly 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.


missingkitten

I wonder if he thinks that people overseas didn't notice the federal government's horrifically mismanaged response to Hurricane Katrina?

And it makes me wonder...

And it makes me wonder....

At Upyernoz, there's some vedddy interesting commentary about an 'assasination' that took place in Beirut today.

It came hours before UN Security Council members got the latest report on the death of a former Lebanese PM, in which Syria has been implicated....the attack raises the political temperature in Lebanon at a highly sensitive moment.

Digby on Freedom Fries and Niger Lies

Of Freedom Fries and Niger Lies

Listen to Digby.

Tar Heel Tavern: Peace Futures

Tar Heel Tavern: Peace Futures



The latest Tar Heel Tavern is up at Anonymoses. Many thanks for the special dedication. The photos by Colonel Corn and the artwork by James Woodard Williams are a feast for the eyes.

Iraq Ain't Our Fathers' Revolution

"The soldiers who would have to defend......."

"While the Declaration of Independence was enacted in Philadelphia, the soldiers who would have to defend the brave statement were in New York. George Washington received word on July 9 that the document had been signed. He gathered his men on the Common (City Hall Park) and had the document read to them. Afterward, Washington exhorted his men to be worthy of the newly independent nation whose uniform they now wore. The troops and townspeople then went to Bowling Green at the south end of Broadway to pull down the statue of George III."

-Fraunces Tavern Museum website

------------

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, U.S. Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army PSYOP team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

- Seattle Times

Iraq Ain't Our Fathers' Revolution

The president wishes for us to think of Iraq as we would think of the newly united and independent 18th century American colonies after a long battle and discussion of the values we wished to set down as our rule of law. In Philadelphia today, he invoked the memory of the colonists, the founding fathers and their Revolution. I don't know about you, but I'm amazed at Bush's gall, with his Iraqo-morphing of the American Revolution, trying to squeeze as much propaganda as he can possibly squeeze into a frame of the Spirit of 1776. I just don't see it.

- Though many of the founding fathers' ideas were sprung from European philosophers, Europe did not come in to occupy the colonies in order to make us "free." Au contraire - we fought against England's occupation with a verve and passion that caused us to be driven to bloody revolution. Our forefathers did not run in fear from British soldiers. They were determined - and brave - brave as hell. Bush can't even tell us that the 200,000 Iraqi troops we've trained are battle-ready. When asked for an exact count of the number of Iraqis who stand at the ready today, Bush gave a mealy-mouthed answer of "more and more." More and more? BAH! We're stuck in the middle of what is now a civil war (not a "revolution") - and the Iraqi troops are afraid to fight it on their own. U.S. trained Iraqi security troops have been known to take cover and leave the dying to U.S. soldiers when a dangerous situation arises!

- Our Constitution was not mediated by outside forces - we forged and blended our best common ideas - hard-won, independent, distinctly American hard-gut and fiercely-held ideas - and set them down - on our own terms and no other outside parties' interests.

- We knew what we wanted - there was no murderous civil war between us once we decided to fight as a united front to oust England - and we worked tirelessly, together, to achieve our goals. We didn't blow each other up in our churches or on the common.

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

For every grandiose idea laid out by the president today in his speech, eight words kept going through my mind:

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

If the president's ideas were as great and true as he lays them out to be, why has the world isolated us? Why has Bush failed to directly call upon or appeal to the kind of human spirit and economic cooperation that would entice world leaders to join this nation in our efforts in Iraq? Is it because he doesn't want to share the unique spoils of this war?

Do you know what the extent of the president's multinational attitude was in his speech today? He hopes that the international community will "buck up" on their 13 billion dollar commitments. Period.

That is soulless and it drives the nails into a coffin of a new brand of isolationist thinking, which works in reverse of the old ideas about isolationism. As we poke our swords over the borders of our nation, crossing oceans and overthrowing regimes; carelessly creating anarchy in the name of "freedom" and hoped-for "democracy," the world isolates us. Our allies fall away.

Bush has isolated his people because he has alienated the world. He may have the greatest ideas, but if he cannot lead or inspire the world, we will all suffer for his failure of leadership.

Bush: 9/11 'accentuated' Saddam Hussein's Threat to U.S.

Bush: 9/11 'Accentuated' Saddam Hussein's Threat to U.S.

In Philadelphia today, when asked to clarify the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's government, the president weakly said that 9/11 changed his "look of foreign policy" and that oceans no longer protect us. (We depended solely upon Oceans to protect us? Since when?) He said that 9/11 "accentuated" Saddam's threat to America.

Accentuate: To bring out distinctly; to make prominent; to emphasize.
[1913 Webster]

To emphasize is not to link. To bring out is not a reason to bring war.

Le Gouvernement français arrêts le Régime de Gore

Le Gouvernement Français Arrêts le Régime de Gore

La mariée mystérieuse d'Archeron fait une plaisanterie

Upon My Returning to The Blog

Upon My Returning to The Blog

The truths we have come to understand need to find their visible expression in our lives. Our every thought, word, or action holds the possibility of being a living expression of clarity and love...Wisdom is alive only as long as it is lived, understanding is liberating only as long as it is applied. A bulging portfolio of spiritual experiences matters little if it does not have the power to sustain us through the inevitable moments of grief, loss, and change. Knowledge and achievements matter little if we do not yet know how to touch the heart of another and be touched.

--Christina Feldman and Jack Kornfield, Stories of the Spirit, Stories of the Heart

The capacity for compassion is our greatest human gift. We're all brothers and sisters under the skin - and we're only here for a short time. In the end, only our conscious acts of kindness matter. It could be something as simple as a note of support you've sent to a friend - or as far-reaching as an action you've taken toward social justice when you've seen that a brother has clearly been forgotten in an all-too unforgiving world.

Thanks again to every one of you for each expression of condolence you offered to me upon the loss of my mother. I wanted to share one particular message that brought me great comfort in quiet moments of sadness:

It is said in the Islamic tradition that the love of a Mother is the closest love you can imagine to God's love. The Prophet Muhammad said that God loves us 70 times more than our mother. So imagine the grace of God! Remembering the love of the mother has great merit - and God loves it.

Thank you, Sadiq, for the words and the rose - and many thanks to all who cared enough to send a note or comment.

Thank You

Thank You

Many thanks to my dearest friend, and to all who have sent their good wishes and prayers in these difficult days. I lost my mother today to a valiant three-year-long struggle with cancer.

Why John Walsh is Wrong About John Edwards

Why John Walsh is Wrong About John Edwards

Imagine Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee moving to VETO authorization for the President of the United States to do what he needed to do to keep the nation safe in 2002.

Consider the fact that all through the airwaves, we heard Bush, Blair (UK) and Howard (AU) claiming to know for certain that Saddam Hussein had amassed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that were ready for use; that the production of such weapons was increasing in tempo; and that it was almost certain that within a short few years Saddam Hussein would be in possession of nuclear weapons as well. Well after the 2002 IWR, a report came out from the Institute for Policy Studies, which was critical of Bush's decision to rush to war, but was still showing an uncertainty on WMD.

Question: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

Answer: We don't know for sure - that's why the UN inspectors are in Iraq. As of the end of 2002, the inspectors have not indicated they have found evidence of any viable weapons programs.

A Senate Intelligence Committee veto in October, 2002?

I DON'T THINK SO.

The nation was one year removed from the 911 attacks. The nation was still reeling - and misled by the President and his administration. The scenario of a veto is preposterous, and yet John Walsh is forwarding it in a Counterpunch article.

He makes an accusation against certain Democratic Senators, a case for which has not proven out in any realistic or hypothetical sense in his opinion piece,

"Democrats had enough knowledge to know that we were being lied into war in October, 2002. And except for a courageous 21 Senators, along with 2 Republicans, they went along for the ride - with their careers in mind."

Enough knowledge? I'm not so crystal clear on that. It was easy for us bloggers to bounce around our thoughts, but we weren't sitting in a Senator's seat. One uncovering of a cache of chemical weapons or nuclear material in Iraq would have sent those 21 "courageous" Senators' careers straight down the crapper.

In a nutshell, Graham tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction.

In a nutshell, I'll bet that most of those Senators felt that way in their gut, even though their final votes to give the President authorization to proceed may have been different.

Mr. Walsh expresses deep concern that there is no "opposition party" today.

Right now it is crystal clear that there is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be further imperiled.

I find that to be a shaky conclusion from my own experience - the Bush agenda is not in line with that of the majority of our Democratic representatives, and I don't believe it is "opposition" that we need. What we need is cooperation from all of our Representatives, Republican and Democrat for a sane and moral agenda in both foreign and domestic policies. We are all faced with instability in the Middle East, and a good part of it is because of the way in which our Commander in Chief approached and executed this war. I believe that giving the President of the United States the authorization to proceed was done in good faith by the Democrats. If there was a shadow of doubt about the WMD question (and there were many shadows - I had blogged about the small chance that chemical weapons might be used against the troops we were sending headlong into Iraq), then those Representatives held a great responsibility for that smallest doubt in their hands in October 2002. It's too easy to sit back now, with all we have uncovered since 2002, and point our fingers at cherry-picked Senators who did what they felt they had to do. In 2002, I was fairly sure that Bush was lying about the level of truth in the confidence we should have had in the available intelligence information he was presenting to our representatives. Many of our representatives probably felt that same uneasiness.

William Rivers Pitt wrote this in March, 2003 - speaking to all American citizens about the mistake he believed had been made:

"I understand why you support this engagement. At bottom, you do so because you are loyal. The President has said it must be so, and so it must be so. The loyalty of this nation's citizenry is now and has always been our greatest strength. Many of you who support the war are veterans of other conflicts, and so your support is based upon a desire to stand with the troops now in harm's way. This is more than honorable. Many of you believe this must happen because you have been told, time and again, that Saddam Hussein possesses an awesome arsenal of mass destruction weapons that he will gladly give to terrorists for use against us. Your belief that this is so stems from your loyalty - - the President has told you it is true, and so it must be true...........At the end of the day, though, I think I know the true reason why you support this war. You still see September 11th when you close your eyes.

I'm sensing that people like Mr. Walsh are angry with the whole of our society, and I understand perfectly well why he would feel that way. No one stopped a radical leader with no plan to complete the task he set out to accomplish - and that task - a war - was based on false information. We are angry. We're all looking for someone or something to blame.

The targets of our anger are many. I would think, if we really wanted to make a difference with promoting alternatrives to unjust pre-emptive wars, we might learn to trust some of our experienced Democratic leaders rather than throwing them over for candidates who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election. When you see a leader like Senator John Edwards reaching a hand out and telling you why he believes he's made a mistake and offering ways to turn this mess around, instead of slapping him in the face, why not listen and think about the realities of our world and what we face, as one nation today? It's useless to try to adjudicate this long-standing distrust for our Democratic Senators by asking who was the most wrong at the time of the IWR. If any anti-war movement will ever have a valid voice, it will have to be a voice that gives up the animosity toward some of the leaders who have learned important lessons - and try forgiveness, and to appeal to them to implement their hard-learned experience to put our nation on a moral path. If you're like me, you might pray for their strength to lead us on.

I don't believe any movement that calls itself "anti-war" with leaders who profess to be "anti-war" without presenting solid alternatives to war will ever have a chance for practical success here in this nation. I am "anti-war" - and I know that we face a dangerous world with more tensions today, thanks to the worst President in history, than we have ever faced.

In the words of Wendell Berry:

"We can no longer afford to confuse peaceability with passivity. Authentic peace is no more passive than war. Like war, it calls for discipline and intelligence and strength of character, though it calls also for higher principles and aims. If we are serious about peace, then we must work for it as ardently, seriously, continuously, carefully, and bravely as we now prepare for war."

Now is not the time to parse the words of Bob Graham to accuse any other Senator of being a "liar" - which is an unfair and unacceptable accusation. I'm quite sick of reading this kind of journalism, but I understand why it's out there. Democrats have missed the boat on creating a better vision. The ones who admit they've learned the hardest lessons and that they care to change the status quo are the ones we might hold out the best hope for leading us to a better day -with war as a last resort rather than the first.

Scott Ritter on Politicization of Intelligence

Scott Ritter on Politicization of Intelligence

Scott Ritter makes a very important statement, and I agree with his opinion because I know a person who had direct experience with intelligence in the 90s in the Middle East and Africa - and in past conversations, he has told me much the same:

The crux of the problem of this Iraqi WMD intelligence "failure" lies in the fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the products it produces are increasingly influenced by the corrupting influences of politics. The politicization of the intelligence community allows the process of fixing intelligence around policy to become pervasive, and the increasingly polarized political climate in America prevents any real checks and balances through effective oversight, leaving Americans at the mercy of politicians who have placed partisan politics above the common good. The recent overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community, which resulted in the creation of the national intelligence chief, only reinforces this politicization, because the new director reports directly to the president and is beyond the reach of congressional oversight.

Not only is intelligence, once pinned down, used for partisan politics, but I have been told that the process by which intelligence gathering itself takes place has unmistakable political influence. The way we do business to justify war has to change or, God forbid, we'll have more Iraqs.

Ritter suggests this solution:

The only true fix to the problems of intelligence that manifested themselves in the Iraqi WMD debacle is to depoliticize the process. The position of national intelligence chief should be a 10-year appointment, like that of the director of the FBI, and subject to the consent of Congress. Likewise, all intelligence made available to the president to make national security policy should be shared with select members of Congress, from both parties, so that America will never again find itself at war based upon politically driven intelligence. Finally, and perhaps most important, the American people should start exercising effective accountability regarding their elected officials, so that those who voted yes for a war based on false and misleading information never again have the honor and privilege of serving in high office.

In the real world, voters are probably not going to overturn their incumbent representatives for their vote on the Iraq War Resolution. It may seem distasteful to think it's true, but the final vote - for or against giving a President authorization to make war, if necessary, will always be political, even if the intelligence is not fixed around the policy. It's my opinion that no matter how hard we try to provide oversight and balance, our intelligence agents and officials will be perpetually led by the political nose. Let's not be naive. Maybe the best suggestion is not to rush to war resolutions in the first place - to find alternatives to war. This is where I disagree with Scott Ritter. Rather than lashing out from anger and frustration at the way things are - and probably will not drastically change, let's act positively, as a large activist voting bloc, toward the change we want to see. The American people should start worrying and concentrating a lot more about exercising effective pressure on their representatives to make war obsolete - to impress upon their government the belief that war should the very last choice in an array of viable alternatives. The work of peacemaking and following the rule of law is not a walk in the park, and it takes great minds to carve out the new paths we will need to take if we're going to survive as a civil nation among a league of civil nations in the 21st century. We should accept no less. We have to ask ourselves who is up to the task. Our representatives should exercise accountability for their IWR votes in an open and frank manner - and we should be allowed to decide for ourselves whether or not their reasoning makes sense to us.

Overall, I have a healthy respect for Scott Ritter's suggestion for better checks and balances on intelligence operations that will forever be subject to political abuse.

What Would JFK Have Done?

What Would JFK Have Done?

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

"I think religious people are strengthened in their beneficent influence by being separated from government and not dominated from government."
- Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

Don't miss this interview with former President Jimmy Carter at Busted Halo. The webmag discusses "America's Moral Crisis" with the former President.

"I believe that the recent public opinion polls that I’ve read, just like you, show an increasing disillusionment with this administration, a very rapid decrease in trust that the administration is telling the truth and exemplifies the moral values that I describe in the book, those things are showing up in the present disapproving polls. And I think that may very well be a predictor of what will happen in future."

_ __ _ ____ ____ ____ _ __ _

*While you're visiting Busted Halo, Jason Rowe, a Catholic Worker at Casa Juan Diego in Houston, Texas, has written a piece about the life and legacy of Dorothy Day, one of my personal heroines for having been selflessly devoted to ministering to the ever-present needs of the poor and the homeless.

"Day should serve as a model for believers seeking to radically live out their baptismal calling within the concrete context of the world they inhabit."
- Jason Rowe

It is only by embracing
our own state of brokenness
that we are able reach out with compassion
in faith and hope to others
and as we have offered
our love and understanding
we find by some miracle
that we are loved and understood

- Jude

*Visit Oxfam to see how you can help others today.

Monday Random 12

Monday Random 12

1. Wooden nickels - eels, 'daisies of the galaxy'
2. I will follow you into the dark - death cab for cutie, 'plans'
3. To live's to fly - townes van zandt, 'be here to love me'
4. Echo park - joseph arthur,'our shadows will remain'
5. Harriet's got a song - ben kweller, 'sha sha'
6. Greenville - lucinda williams, 'car wheels on a gravel road'
7. You'll never leave Harlan alive - darrell scott, 'aloha from nashville'
8. Halo 'round the moon, steve earle, 'transcendental blues'
9. John Wilkes Booth, tony rice, 'native american'
10. Pull, richard buckner, 'devotion and doubt'
11. You can't take love for granted - graham parker - 'the real macaw'
12. Willy, joni mitchell, 'ladies of the canyon'

*inspired by Horatio's Sunday 12.

America's Spiritual and Moral Lag

America's Spiritual and Moral Lag

William Rivers Pitt pulls no punches - he wears no mask of fantasy. He is obviously saddened - and I think most of us are saddened by the American experience since the turn of the Century.

"Since January 2001, we have lost faith in the idea that our votes matter, we have lost two towers in New York, we have lost an entire city in Louisiana, we have lost two thousand one hundred and twenty nine soldiers to Iraq, somewhere along the way we lost a whole pile of weapons of mass destruction those soldiers died trying to find, we have lost a substantial portion of our children's future by spending hundreds of billions of dollars so those soldiers could die far from home, we have lost our standing with the international community, and a good portion of the planet looks long and hard at us, wondering if we have also lost our minds."

Losing faith is just about as sad as it gets. We lose hope when we feel powerless. There can be no upward movement unless there is first a downward one. We've been on the moral and spiritual downward path for quite some time now. We are the shining beacon of the crushed and uninspired. How do we "redeem the spiritual and moral lag?" (using Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words). How will we reestablish a spirit-broken democracy?

In his Nobel Lecture in 1964, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said this about poverty:

"..it is obvious that if man is to redeem his spiritual and moral "lag", he must go all out to bridge the social and economic gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots" of the world. Poverty is one of the most urgent items on the agenda of modern life. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we have the resources to get rid of it.

He said this about war:

I venture to suggest to all of you and all who hear and may eventually read these words, that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict, by no means excluding the relations between nations. It is, after all, nation-states which make war, which have produced the weapons which threaten the survival of mankind, and which are both genocidal and suicidal in character....We will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say "We must not wage war." It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace.

He looked at our place in the world, and the hope he held for the world, in this way:

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response which is little more than emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality.

As you read Dr. King's words, think of ways that we can, as we stand today, redeem our 21st Century spiritual and moral "lag."